linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] cpufreq: Add a flag to auto-register a cooling device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <154751027198.169631.16299398103212295726@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:57:51 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, edubezval@...il.com,
        andy.gross@...aro.org, tdas@...eaurora.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        mka@...omium.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] cpufreq: Add a flag to auto-register a cooling device

Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-01-14 02:21:06)
> All cpufreq drivers do similar things to register as a cooling device.
> Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can just ask the cpufreq core
> to register the cooling device on their behalf. This allows us to get
> rid of duplicated code in the drivers.
> 
> Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h   |  6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6f23ebb395f1..7faebfc61e60 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>  #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
>  #include <linux/tick.h>
>  #include <trace/events/power.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>

Maybe this is supposed to be ordered alphabetically? If so, this should
be much higher.

>  
>  static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
>  
> @@ -1318,6 +1319,12 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>         if (cpufreq_driver->ready)
>                 cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
>  
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> +               struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
> +
> +               *cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> +       }

This seems to be some complicated way of writing:

		policy->cooldev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

?

> +
>         pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
>  
>         return 0;
> @@ -1411,6 +1418,12 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>         if (has_target())
>                 cpufreq_exit_governor(policy);
>  
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> +               struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
> +
> +               cpufreq_cooling_unregister(*cdev);

Similar? I'm confused!